Case 2601526/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Robinson v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Heard: Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601526/2022
- Decision date
- 8 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Robinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 19 September 2023 before Employment Judge S Shore, the tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the claimant's disability discrimination claims and her holiday pay claim. The claimant had been employed by Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust as a Temporary Staffing Administrator from 7 September 2020 until she resigned on 16 June 2022, with an effective date of termination of 15 July 2022. She had presented her ET1 on 6 July 2022.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment, identified as generalised anxiety and panic disorder, but applied section 6 Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, section 136, and the principles in Goodwin v Patent Office. It found that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities before April 2021. The tribunal rejected or did not accept sufficient evidence about the effects said to arise in relation to appointments, food shopping, household tasks, sleeping, driving, and communication, and it found that the CBT and medical evidence did not show the statutory threshold was met.
The tribunal also considered the effect of the face mask issue from April 2021, but concluded that this did not establish that the claimant met the definition of disabled person for the relevant period. As a result, the disability discrimination claims, including the reasonable adjustments complaint under ss.20-21 and the s.15 discrimination arising from disability complaint, were struck out in their entirety for want of jurisdiction.
On the holiday pay complaint, the tribunal found that the claim related to the claimant having to use three days' annual leave while her laptop was being repaired in 2021, which affected leave over Christmas 2021. It treated the claim as crystallising no later than 7 January 2022, noted that early conciliation started on 16 June 2022 and the ET1 was presented on 6 July 2022, and held that no explanation had been given for the delay. Applying the WTR/ERA time limit question and the reasonable practicability test, the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been brought in time and struck it out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant had identified claims of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010 and discrimination arising from disability under s.15. The tribunal struck the disability discrimination claims out in their entirety because it found she did not meet the s.6 Equality Act definition of a disabled person, so it had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim concerned three days' annual leave used while the claimant's laptop was being repaired in 2021, affecting leave over Christmas 2021. The tribunal found the complaint was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable for it to have been presented in time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- s.136 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- reasonable practicability
- Working Time Regulations 1998 time limit
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.